netdev - Re: [PATCHv2 iproute2-next 0/5] iproute2: add libbpf support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 29 Oct 2020 11:51:19 +0100
From:   Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To:     Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Cc:     Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
        Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
        Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
        Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 iproute2-next 0/5] iproute2: add libbpf support

Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com> writes:

> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 09:00:41PM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
>> >> nope. you need to be able to handle this. Ubuntu 20.10 was just
>> >> released, and it has a version of libbpf. If you are going to integrate
>> >> libbpf into other packages like iproute2, it needs to just work with
>> >> that version.
>> > 
>> > OK, I can replace bpf_program__section_name by bpf_program__title().
>> 
>> I believe this one can be handled through a compatability check. Looks
>> the rename / deprecation is fairly recent (78cdb58bdf15f from Sept 2020).
>
> Hi David,
>
> I just come up with another way. In configure, build a temp program and update
> the function checking every time is not graceful. How about just check the
> libbpf version, since libbpf has exported all functions in src/libbpf.map.
>
> Currently, only bpf_program__section_name() is added in 0.2.0, all other
> needed functions are supported in 0.1.0.
>
> So in configure, the new check would like:

Why is this easier than just checking for the function you need? In
xdp-tools configure we have a test like this:

check_perf_consume()
{
    cat >$TMPDIR/libbpftest.c <<EOF
#include <bpf/libbpf.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
    perf_buffer__consume(NULL);
    return 0;
}
EOF
    libbpf_err=$($CC -o $TMPDIR/libbpftest $TMPDIR/libbpftest.c $LIBBPF_CFLAGS $LIBBPF_LDLIBS 2>&1)
    if [ "$?" -eq "0" ]; then
        echo "HAVE_LIBBPF_PERF_BUFFER__CONSUME:=y" >>"$CONFIG"
        echo "yes"
    else
        echo "HAVE_LIBBPF_PERF_BUFFER__CONSUME:=n" >>"$CONFIG"
        echo "no"
    fi
}

Just do that for __section_name(), and you'll also be able to work with
custom libbpf versions using LIBBPF_DIR.

> static const char *get_bpf_program__section_name(const struct bpf_program *prog)
> {
> #ifdef HAVE_LIBBPF_SECTION_NAME
> 	return bpf_program__section_name(prog);
> #else
> 	return bpf_program__title(prog, false);
> #endif
> }

This bit is fine :)

-Toke